TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the application seeking to take the rejoinder on record and condone the delay was in the nature of a review application, and whether the Tribunal could enlarge the time for filing the rejoinder. (ii) Whether the rejoinder could be used to introduce additional factual assertions or a new case beyond the main petition.
Issue (i): Whether the application seeking to take the rejoinder on record and condone the delay was in the nature of a review application, and whether the Tribunal could enlarge the time for filing the rejoinder.
Analysis: The procedural rules treated pleadings to include a rejoinder, and the Tribunal's inherent powers and power to regulate procedure permitted it to make orders to secure the ends of justice. The order granting time for rejoinder was treated as an exercise of procedural discretion, not an adjudication on merits, so the request was not a review application. The Tribunal also had power to enlarge time even after expiry when justice required it.
Conclusion: The application was not a review application, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to enlarge the time and take the rejoinder on record.
Issue (ii): Whether the rejoinder could be used to introduce additional factual assertions or a new case beyond the main petition.
Analysis: A rejoinder may answer additional facts raised in the reply, but it cannot expand the scope of the original petition or set up an altogether new case. The purpose of a rejoinder is confined to dealing with matters arising from the reply, not to fill gaps in the original pleadings or start a fresh round of pleadings.
Conclusion: Additional factual assertions beyond the main petition could not be entertained through the rejoinder.
Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed. The rejoinder was maintainable to the extent of the procedural relief sought, but it could not be used to enlarge the original case by introducing new factual foundations.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal may enlarge procedural time and permit a rejoinder in the exercise of its inherent and procedural powers, but a rejoinder cannot introduce a new case or expand the scope of the original petition beyond the pleadings already made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
